Worst "Commander" of WWII?

[Doppleganger]

Of all the difficulties the Germans faced in waging World War II, the greatest lay in having their own Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, as their supreme commander—their worst general. Hitler had been allowed to gain too much control, even over the military commanders.

German Grand Strategy had been flawed since the days of Bismarck - Hitler just took things to the next level. Hitler in the beginning gave his commanders quite a bit of free reign. It was only after the reversal at Moscow in 1941/42 that he began to attempt to micro-manage things.

Was Hitler a military genius? No way!!!

The idea of him being militarily gifted really took hold after he took credit for the implementation of Blitzkrieg warfare and, combining that with the success of the Ardennes Offensive of 1940, defeated France in six weeks and sent English forces scurrying for the channel.

The idea of blitzkrieg warfare, however, did not originate with Hitler but more so with Generals like Guderian and the Ardennes Offensive was thought up and planned by Erich Manstein. To Hitler can only go the credit for recognizing the advantages of both and allowing them to be adopted.

He most certainly was not a military genius but his instincts were quite good. He saw the potential of armour and fostered the conditions that allowed men like Guderian to succeed despite major disapproval from the traditional arms of the armed forces. Without Hitler's approval who is to say what Guderian might have achieved, or not achieved to be more precise.

Hitler's lack of military ability began to show in 1941 with the poor planning of the Barbarossa Offensive. Firstly, the terrible risk of a two front war was taken with little forethought. Secondly, there was a shortage of tanks and trucks and no provision for winter clothing or supplies. Thirdly, there was poor intelligence. Little was known about Soviet strength or weaponry nor was the draconian hold Stalin had on the country and its resources considered. Little preparation was done to rapidly convert or utilize the Soviet Railway Systems with their wide gauge tracking. The condition of Soviet roads, critical for Blitzkrieg warfare, was overestimated.

Well the plan was devised by Halder and the majority of German commanders believed in its success. At that time there was no major two front land war. There was no shortage of tanks. The problem was that there was no opportunity allowed to rest and refit and that the logistical structure in place was inadequate for the task. There was provision for winter clothing but under the original timescale for Barbarossa it was deemed as not of high priority. You're right about the Germans underestimating the condition of Soviet roads but to be fair, I doubt that it would have been possible for adequate intelligence to be gained in the timescales that existed. German intelliigence throughout the war was barely adequate.

The Germans had a fair approximation of Soviet front-line strength. What they seriously underestimated was a) the average Soviet soldier's will to resist, b) the ability of the Red Army to replenish their combat losses so quickly and c) the scale of the task before them.

Also, Hitler insisted on dispersing his forces over the whole of the USSR with few, if any, points of thrust. Therefore, the further his troops advanced, the weaker they would become. He launched Typhoon, the attack on Moscow in October when any Wehrmacht meteorologist could have told him the fall rains would soon be coming followed by the hard frost and plunging temperatures. He went ahead anyway and, for this reason, forced his troops to fight a desperate winter campaign which destroyed much equipment, horses and men not to mention morale. On top of this disaster, he declared war on the United States without first ensuring that Japan would, in turn, attack the USSR from the east.

There were 3 points of thrust but the whole operation was optimistic to say the least. Hitler was persuaded by his senior field commanders (including Guderian, Bock, Hoth etc) that Moscow could be captured even so late on in the season. Hitler's error was to listen to them and explains partly why he decided to micromanage the Wehrmacht after the plan failed. It's no surprise then that the commander of Army Group Centre and 3 of its 6 field army commanders (Guderian included) were sacked by Hitler. With hindsight, they possibly lost him the only chance to defeat Russia.

In 1942, he turned away from Moscow and made for Stalingrad and the Caucasus, leaving his left flank terribly exposed and manned only by troops from Italy, Hungary and Rumania. When the Soviets finally did attack, he refused to admit his error and would not withdraw the encircled 6th army.

You mean his left flank at Stalingrad of course. His overall left flank was held by Army Group Centre camped near Rzhev. Zhukov tried to dislodge Army Group Centre and suffered his worst defeat in the process. Hitler by late 1942 was beginning to lose the plot and suffering more and more the onset of Parkinson's. His defeat at Stalingrad was a test of wills with Stalin rather than any sensible military strategy. He lost of course.

 

[Prapor]

Georgy Zhukov. Everyone says 'He won the war'. But he sacrificed 10 soldiers where only 1 would be enough. The huge Red Army losses are, mostly, his fault, not the Nazis'.

 

[lljadw]

The worst WWII commander by terms of the ammount of vainly lost lifes was Georgi Zhukov.

not that I am wanting to defend Zhukov(perish the thought),but would another general have done better ?
Was he incompetent,No Was he brilliant ? No
Could you be more specific on the ammount of vainly lost lives?When was there 'a vainly lost life'?

 

[LeEnfield]

When you think that the Russians cleared mine fields by sending Penal Battalions to march through them then you can understand why they lost so many men

 

[Prapor]

It was because of Zhukov's 'skill' as a commander that the Germans made it as far as they did, almost took Moscow. And at Moscow, one rifle was shared by two soldiers. Soldiers... there was not enough soldiers to defend the city by then. Opolchenie was sent: volunteers, civilians, students, peasants, factory workers, armed with whatever they could get their hands on. My grandfather's brother was one of those. A boy, was still in school back then, 9th grade, went there, they gave him a rifle sent him off. He was killed defending Zvenigorod... A million more like him, men and women, gave their lives for the city. This did not have to happen. All because of Zhukov's incompetence.

 

[lljadw]

It was because of Zhukov's 'skill' as a commander that the Germans made it as far as they did, almost took Moscow. And at Moscow, one rifle was shared by two soldiers. Soldiers... there was not enough soldiers to defend the city by then. Opolchenie was sent: volunteers, civilians, students, peasants, factory workers, armed with whatever they could get their hands on. My grandfather's brother was one of those. A boy, was still in school back then, 9th grade, went there, they gave him a rifle sent him off. He was killed defending Zvenigorod... A million more like him, men and women, gave their lives for the city. This did not have to happen. All because of Zhukov's incompetence.

that there were not enough weapons :was this the fault of Zhukov ?
that there were not enough soldiers:was this the fault of Zhukov ?

 

[Prapor]

that there were not enough weapons :was this the fault of Zhukov ?
that there were not enough soldiers:was this the fault of Zhukov ?

There was enough in 1941. He moved them toward the borders, at the same time dismantling any defenses and fortifications there, preparing for an assault on Europe. Except he was stupid: Hitler attacked first. The Germans overrun the troops at the borders and captured not only millions of prisoners, but tonnes of weapons, provisions, much of our arsenals; destroyed maybe half our air force on the ground, because Mr. Zhukov moved the air fields to the borders too 9and did not even bother to mask/hide them from German bombers.

 

[lljadw]

When you think that the Russians cleared mine fields by sending Penal Battalions to march through them then you can understand why they lost so many men

If this was so (I have seen some heated discussions,where the conclusion was :it is a myth;but this is of topic)is this a proof of the incompetence of Zhukov?
The reason of using penal batallions could be that there were no engineers available,the only opotion was then to sacrifice men who were considered traitors or criminals,and were expendable .
An other point :was the responsible for the decision Zhukov ?Maybe it was some other general,and Zhukov did not care ,the only thing beying important was that the mine fields were cleared .
Maybe(?) the main reason for the enormous Russian losses was:a great part of the country beying occupied,there was an enormous political (=Stalin) pressure to liberate the countryby repeated attacks,and if there were big losses,well soldiers were expendable :the end justifies the means .

 

[lljadw]

There was enough in 1941. He moved them toward the borders, at the same time dismantling any defenses and fortifications there, preparing for an assault on Europe. Except he was stupid: Hitler attacked first. The Germans overrun the troops at the borders and captured not only millions of prisoners, but tonnes of weapons, provisions, much of our arsenals; destroyed maybe half our air force on the ground, because Mr. Zhukov moved the air fields to the borders too 9and did not even bother to mask/hide them from German bombers.

I know the strategic disposition of the Red army in dangerous salients (a big fault),but,who was responsible ? Only Zhukov ? Maybe also Stalin ? And I think that a wise man would not argue with Stalin;-)

 

[Doppleganger]

Zhukov was hardly the worst commander of WWII. In fact he was pretty decent but he did seem to have a callous disregard for the men under him. He had Stalin goading and pushing him which didn't help. And he made a mess of Operation Mars. It really annoys me that he is popularly thought of by the masses as one of the great commanders of history, up there with Alexander, Napoleon, Hannibal etc.

An utter joke...

 

[TRose]

My choice would be Japan's Nishio Toshizo. . First he walks into a trap set by the Chinese during the Battle of Tai'erzhuang and hands the Japanese army their first defeat in modern times
Showing that he was a slow learner next year he march his army toward Changsa neglecting things like his flanks or reconnaissance, he again walk his army into an ambush set by the Chinese army in the Battle of Changsa. After that he get thrown upstairs as Military governor of Tokyo
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...9qg4oZbiALGeMoqqQ&sig2=vvQIQG8ALpXllFcVDk9rCw

and again gets his Army ambushed by the Chinese

 

[allias]

Indeed Freyberg was commander of the New Zealand 2nd Division.
Alexander was overall campaign commander but it was Freyberg that lobbied for the monastery's bombing Alexander gave it the go ahead so there is no doubt he has to bear some responsibility just not all.

This is section I scanned from the book CASSINO - The Hollow Victory




--------------------------------------
ghost whisper seasons dvd, i just can feel the ghost around me, when i saw cold case seasons dvd, i have to thought, what we people are, we do crule things than animal

 

[KeithG]

I'm obviously late to this forum--and I hope I'm posting correctly-- but haven't seen anyone mention Lesley McNair. His responsibility for killing the deployment of a heavy allied tank was alone enough to place him firmly on this list. While his Sherman tankers were getting blown to pieces in Normandy, he was appropriately killed by his own men by means of an allied bombing attack.

And its not that we weren't expecting bigger, better German tanks. Besides having reports of German tank performance in Russia, we actually directly came up against the Tiger tank in N. Africa.

 

[PFC Prokopy]

even though he wasnt really a general id have to say Hitler himself, the 3rd Reich could have succeded in taking europe but he wouldnt listen to his generals and decided to attack Russia when he could have easily gone around to the middle east and gotten petrol there

 

[MontyB]

I'm obviously late to this forum--and I hope I'm posting correctly-- but haven't seen anyone mention Lesley McNair. His responsibility for killing the deployment of a heavy allied tank was alone enough to place him firmly on this list. While his Sherman tankers were getting blown to pieces in Normandy, he was appropriately killed by his own men by means of an allied bombing attack.

And its not that we weren't expecting bigger, better German tanks. Besides having reports of German tank performance in Russia, we actually directly came up against the Tiger tank in N. Africa.

Seems there are a lot of contenders for the title of worst commander, perhaps a we would have been better off choosing worst commander by nationality.

 

[papasha408]

My choices are Gen. Percival at Singapore and Adolph Hitler who sped up Germany's fall.

 

[BritinBritain]

My choices are Gen. Percival at Singapore and Adolph Hitler who sped up Germany's fall.

Although I agree Percival did surrender long before before he should have done, in the end he wouldn't have had much choice. He lacked aircover, the RAF Brewster Buffalo's had been knocked out of the sky by the more nimble Zero's, the Japanese had bombed the water supply which was failing.

The fault of the disaster doesn't only lay with Percival it lays with successive British Governments who kept the island under equipped. The Japanese were trained in Jungle warfare, the British were not, the Japanese had better uniforms more suited to jungle warfare, the British were issued with shorts, shirts, long socks and hobnail boots. Sending the Prince of Wales and the Repulse to beef up the British and Commonwealth in the Far East without effective air cover was asking for trouble, and thats what they got.

 

[brinktk]

even though he wasnt really a general id have to say Hitler himself, the 3rd Reich could have succeded in taking europe but he wouldnt listen to his generals and decided to attack Russia when he could have easily gone around to the middle east and gotten petrol there

Um, no...he couldn't have. World War II could have never happened in any reality without the Germans invading Russia. That was part of the ideology of the Nazi party. To remove that ideology from history in order to "coulda, shoulda, woulda" the scenerios is futile. You might as well let them have alien phaser guns because that's about as realistic as them not adhering to their lebenstraum.

 

[papasha408]

Although I agree Percival did surrender long before before he should have done, in the end he wouldn't have had much choice. He lacked aircover, the RAF Brewster Buffalo's had been knocked out of the sky by the more nimble Zero's, the Japanese had bombed the water supply which was failing.

The fault of the disaster doesn't only lay with Percival it lays with successive British Governments who kept the island under equipped. The Japanese were trained in Jungle warfare, the British were not, the Japanese had better uniforms more suited to jungle warfare, the British were issued with shorts, shirts, long socks and hobnail boots. Sending the Prince of Wales and the Repulse to beef up the British and Commonwealth in the Far East without effective air cover was asking for trouble, and thats what they got.

I may be reading the wrong military history but if I'm not mistaken the Japanese were pretty much out of ammo and either would have skulked off waiting for a way out of the peninsula or even surrendered themselves. Though the surrender part I never really believed. The Japanese commander bluffed his way to victory.

 

[Machiavelli]

Who was the worst "commander" of WWII?

Even defining this question is tough. Is a poor general someone who is just defeated in the operational sense of the word, or does the manner of the defeat count? What if the victor has overwhelming numbers or just extreme luck? Is General "Murphy" (as in Murphy's law) a poor general? Probably, but there must be a list of poor commanders. Anyone know something about this issue?

I can name one moron. Göring. That oaf -- the head of the German airforce -- refused to listen to men like Adolf Galland and made strange decisions that clashed with both his own experience and any rational logic. Göring was a fighter pilot in WWI. He should have understood the importance of local air superiority. Yet, when men like Galland argued for a large expansion of the German fighter wing in 1940 at the expense of the Stukas and tactical bombers, he turned them down. Germany lost the air war, in small part, because of Göring's stand against the fighter arm. Galland was frustrated.

Göring was under heavy drugs, though during the time he commanded anything. When he was taken prisoner he got "clean".

Suddenly he got much smarter then, too and even played with the court lawers.

He did take heavy drugs i think cocaine? Cause he was wounded when he was with hitler during the 20ies and tried to overthrow the current etablishment.

For me it was Paulus in Stalingrad. He could have done his job better with own decisions regardless of what Hitler told him. In the end only the victory or at least not such a crushing defeat is of importance, not 1 mans responsibilty, blind folded honor to the Führer or life. He didn't commit suicide as suggested to save the last bit of honor he proably got and justify his blindfolded loyality to the Führer. I wonder was his role was anyways, maybe he was as spy to sabotage the german movement and yeah i say this with a straight face. Rommel should have been in Stalingrad, he would perhaps see what a trap it was and react with his own thinking, he was man enough to commit suicide as ordered, too. While i think commiting suicide was bad, but needed to save his family.

Paulus was the worst commander ever, cause he never made a real decision. He made no sense.

Hitler mainly was bad in the regard how he used his top commanders and how he tried to limit their own expertise. That said, Stalin wasn't any better in that field, actually worser, can't get any worser than to actually kill the own top generals out of paranoia. But if you have ridiculous amounts of manpower, resources, strong allies and at least 1 competent general you can make mistakes and still win. Not with limited resources though, you need top commanders, give them freedom and a fortuneteller, in addition a better leader who makes diplomatic alliances with strong nations.